Which anticipation expresses cause for this condition?

The integration team has reported a problem in testing a few deployed MDBs. By design, each
MDB listens to one of four named queues. Two producers write messages to each queue. The test
issues messages of the same payload type that each producer will send, but varies the number or
size of these messages to measure the messaging server’s performance.
The team has noticed that the utilization remains at the same high rate any time the test writes
messages destined for the third MDB. The message server log does not reveal any failure in
sending messages to this MDB. Which anticipation expresses cause for this condition?

The integration team has reported a problem in testing a few deployed MDBs. By design, each
MDB listens to one of four named queues. Two producers write messages to each queue. The test
issues messages of the same payload type that each producer will send, but varies the number or
size of these messages to measure the messaging server’s performance.
The team has noticed that the utilization remains at the same high rate any time the test writes
messages destined for the third MDB. The message server log does not reveal any failure in
sending messages to this MDB. Which anticipation expresses cause for this condition?

A.
Hot Potato

B.
Leaky Abstraction

C.
Cache less Cow

D.
Golden Hammer

Show Hint

Leave a Reply 4

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Akhtar

Akhtar

A.
Hot potato Anti pattern arise from Messaging in Business layer. Leaky Abstraction is different thing actually it arises when key interfaces do not explicitly define several strange conditions you have repeatedly seen while testing.

Reply